Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

Is it not ironic that there is a so-called freedom of thought, conscience and religion? How may anyone suppress another's sentiments, feelings and convictions? It is, in fact, impossible to force anyone not to believe or to believe one thing and not the other.

One may try to convince, to persuade, to brainwash another. However it is not feasible to talk about obliging someone to believe or not to believe something because even if one states that he is convinced about an issue, he may still adhere to his prior convictions without the other knowing any better.

Why is there a need then to protect the right to have beliefs, thoughts and feelings? Is it not superfluous if the right may not be violated?

One might consider rethinking. If one looks at history, and the wars that have tainted it red, for an indicator as to whether there is a need to have protection of the freedom to believe in something, one immediately realises with an unswerving understanding that freedom of religion is indeed in need of protection, as there does indeed exist a reality of such a right being violated.

It is, in fact, one of the most violated rights worldwide and the one which has the most annihilating effects on the lives of many: Israel, Palestine, former Yugoslavia, Nigeria, Northern Ireland. Most wars were and are still based on religious prejudice and intolerance.

This is because when one believes in something, one does not stop at merely feeling for something; one also needs to express one's beliefs. It is innate to man to desire manifesting one's thoughts and sentiments.

That is when conflict arises, as no two people think and feel alike. That is also when power struggles commence since one's beliefs may undermine another's powers and convictions.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides that:

"1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

"2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Article 15 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as Article 40 of our Constitution provide for a similar protection and also cater for restrictions on freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

However, our Constitution does not stop at providing freedom of religion. In its declaratory provisions, by virtue of Article 2, our Constitution states that the religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion, and that religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith shall be provided in all state schools as part of compulsory education.

One cannot but now ask: What sort of freedom is this then? Are we free to have a faith which is not the one preached and taught in schools? Are we free to be free from any religious belief and advocate atheism? Why should we be obliged to attend lessons on religion in class? It seems, thus, that both these legal provisions are, to an extent, incompatible, at least prima facie.

The freedom referred to here, if it may be termed a 'freedom', is divided into two separate but equally important aspects: the freedom to have one's own thoughts (forum internum) and the right to practise and manifest such thoughts (forum externum).

The former may not be restricted in any manner. It is an absolute right, not merely because it is intrinsic to the very existence of mankind, but also because it cannot in practical terms be violated.

The latter, however, requires protection, because the right to express one's beliefs could conflict with the protection of the rights of others; the individual's good must always be balanced against that of the general public and vice-versa.

This equilibrium must be struck especially in the globalised world we live in, where societies are culturally pluralised not only through physical proximity but also as a result of modern technology, which allows a Buddhist in India to make his thoughts known to the Orthodox Christians spread across the globe. But doesn't Salman Rushdie's case contradict this assertion?

If tolerance, and thus harmony, is to prevail in the world we live in, the manifestation of one's feelings must be protected, but also restricted.

The freedom to believe is thus propounded in an absolute manner, but the freedom to manifest one's beliefs may be restricted by a state for reasons of public order, morals, health, security and the protection of the rights of others.

While it is the state which determines what amounts to a threat to the above factors, this right is not absolute. Both the European Court and the UN Human Rights Committee, inter alia, have the right to ensure that any restriction is not abusive and arbitrary, but necessary in a democratic society and according to law.

Thus, while international bodies will allow states a 'margin of appreciation', whereby a state will be given the first word in declaring what is offensive to its citizens' morals, decency, etc., since it is only the state itself which is in a position to know its culture best, any restriction may not, however, be arbitrary. They must have a reasonable and objective purpose which is proportionate and legitimate to the ultimate objective intended.

A state must promote cultural pluralism and diversity in conformity with democratic principles. This is the basis and philosophy of having a culture of human rights.

To this effect, freedom of thought, conscience and religion does not stop at protecting the right to believe in something and to practise it, but also the freedom not to believe in something, the freedom to change one's religion and the freedom to try and convince others of one's beliefs.

Moreover, apart from themselves promoting a culture of religious tolerance and diversity, states have a duty to educate their citizens to respect others' sentiments.

This is not to say that a person should only be permitted to express thoughts and beliefs when these are pleasant to the ears of another. A real democracy must promote provocation of opinions and beliefs if the society is to be healthy and mature.

Finally, proper protection of this right, as is in fact the case with all other rights and freedoms, is also intrinsic for the protection and respect of other rights and freedoms.

Human rights are interrelated, interdependent and indivisible, and to this extent the protection of one right will enhance and strengthen other rights just as its violation will automatically have an automatic destructive domino effect.

Freedom of religion could thus be inextricably linked, for example, to the right to education, safeguarded by Article 2 of Protocol 11 of the ECHR, which in fact states that:

"No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions."

One could here proceed to ask: why do sons and daughters of foreigners living in our country, generally Muslims, have to attend schools where their religion is not taught, and where they have no access to practise it?

Why are attempts to Catholicise them undertaken? Isn't tolerance towards other religions the fulcrum of Catholicism? Why isn't religious hatred categorically prohibited in primary and secondary schooling, especially nowadays when such hatred can be promoted easily through abominable Websites on the Internet?

Why do we still say "X'gharukaza!" when a Maltese woman marries a Muslim man and converts to Islam? Why is the sale of stickers which expressly state that Jehovah's Witnesses are unwelcome in our homes still permitted?

One could pose many other questions, but it seems that such facts are generally ignored, especially in our country where it has become fashionable, for example, to laugh at the way Muslims pray, when they are allowed to do so.

The greatest majority of asylum- seekers who arrived in Malta recently have not yet had the opportunity to have access to mosques and/or religious ministers. But that's no problem to us Catholics, anyway these are Muslims! "U hallihom! Dawk Gharab!" Doesn't this smell of racism?

Allow us to remind all readers that Jesus Christ himself preached in favour of religious tolerance and, in the Beatitudes, stated:

"Happy are those who are persecuted because they do what God requires; the Kingdom of heaven belongs to them! Happy are you when people insult you and persecute you and tell all kinds of evil lies against you because you are my followers!" (Luke 6: 20-23)

If only we could learn to understand and practise the teachings of Jesus Christ, and live a life built on the values and principles he transmitted to us all!